47-05 Ctr. SPE, LLC v Hack

Holding The court affirmed the judgment awarding possession, holding that a typographical error in the nonrenewal notice was a de minimis defect that did not confuse the tenant or hinder their defense. Additionally, the court found that the simultaneous maintenance of a nonpayment and holdover proceeding did not vitiate the nonrenewal notice given the limited overlap and voluntary discontinuance of the nonpayment action.

The court’s words

A typographical error in the notice typically does not render it ineffective if it could not have materially misled or confused the tenant or hindered the preparation of his defense

2026 NY Slip Op 51314[U], at the official text

This was the sort of de minimis defect in a predicate notice that could not have confused tenant, and there is no indicia of misconduct that would compel us to conclude otherwise

2026 NY Slip Op 51314[U], at the official text

there is no indication that landlord's commencement of the nonpayment proceeding signified an intention to vitiate its 90-day nonrenewal notice or ratify the lease

2026 NY Slip Op 51314[U], at the official text